Is to have the economy fixed, have government spend money responsibly, have the government protect my Constitutionally protected rights, and project a strong image across the world.

Unfortunately most of the PA would be very unhappy to have these things happen. I hope that when Romney wins and PA denizens get a job and move out of their parents basements, that they develop successful careers and become happy.

JimUnfortunately most of the PA would be very unhappy to have these things happen. I hope that when Romney wins and PA denizens get a job and move out of their parents basements, that they develop successful careers and become happy.

This will almost certainly turn them into conservatives.

Unfortunately, the PA board will become more virile than ever before. We thought it was bad with Bush. We've seen nothing yet. You get a minor gimpse of it every time Romney surges in a poll.

We could have 4 years of economic prosperity, low inflation, low unemployement, people moving off welfare and double digit anual returns in the stock market. But the PA types will find a few starving drug adicts and claim Romney's programs caused it.

decath (who remember's full well how liberals foamed at the mouth during the 1980's, regardless of the prosperity Reagan created)

We'll never know because Romney has already lost. The electoral maps are showing a sizable victory for Obama. The few undecideds are not enough to make a difference. Barring some freakish event, it's already over. (Don't believe me? Go check the electoral maps yourself...there are several online, though I like intrade.com because it's not partisan in any way.)

BTW, I'm not a PA person (I only visit "best of" posts), but I want the same things you do. A strong America, a healthy economy, protection of my Constitutional rights (including a repeal of several things Bush signed/enacted). I suspect almost everyone wants those things, in fact. One of my big disappointments with Obama is that he didn't undo warrantless wiretapping and similar infringements on our rights approved by Bush (and Congress, of course). It's infuriating.

The second presidential debate doesn’t appear to have made a difference in Rasmussen Reports’ first post-debate look at the race in Ohio. It’s still a toss-up.

The latest telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters, taken last night, shows President Obama with 49% support to Mitt Romney’s 48%. One percent (1%) prefers another candidate, and two percent (2%) are still undecided.

1poorguy, you should know that when you enter the voting booth, it's OK to vote contrary to what you believed for several months. It's OK to admit you were wrong and the best candidate is not the one you were planning on. You can take the mature path.

One poll or survey is relatively meaningless. There are several electoral maps being published these days that use various sources (including an aggregation of the polls, I believe). Here is intrade's.

As I said, intrade is non-partisan. They just let you bet (in essence) on the outcome.

I've seen a few maps, and they all look like this one. The electoral college distorts elections somewhat, so it's really better to look at how the electoral votes appear to be lining up instead of focusing on a few polls of individual voters.

Certainly something weird could happen to change things. But the odds are pretty long at this point. Which is also reflected in the intrade market (i.e. the cost of placing a bet): http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

The difference is the states listed as "toss-ups". Intrade assigned a few of them to one candidate or the other. RealClearPolitics is right-leaning, so I give them less credence than a non-partisan (I would say the same of a left-leaning group also...non-partisan is more trustworthy to me).

Six months ago I didn't know who I was going to vote for. Obama has been disappointing in several areas. I was ready for someone to convince me they could do better. However, knowing what I now know about Romney, Obama is clearly the least evil. Like so many others, I usually find I'm voting against someone rather than for someone. This time I'm voting against Romney. Barring some earth-shattering revelation during the next two weeks.

I comprehend. You're conflating the effects from the previous administration and this administration. Do a four-year comparison instead.

Four years ago:stock market was crashing, posting record 1-day losses on its way down to 6500GDP was showing negative growth for at least the prior two yearsnational debt was growing at an average of 16% per yearunemployment was over 10%

Today (four years later):stock market is testing all-time highs over 13000GDP has been showing positive growth every yearnational debt is growing at about 13% per yearunemployment is about 7.3% (the lowest in 5 years)

Certainly the unemployment and debt situations are not ideal, but they are much better than they were. And that doesn't even get into other stuff like the Ledbetter Act. Despite a hostile Congress things are better than four years ago. Far from great, and still many disappointments, but better.

Having listened to Romney for several months now I am quite convinced he is a disastrous choice. His social policies are intolerable, his economic policies don't add up (ref: Tax Policy Institute and CBO, for starters), and he manages to offend every nation he visits. Put into office he would allow the monied elite to finish looting this country, run the debt higher faster (ref: TPI and CBO again), load the SCOTUS with Machiavellian choices who would roll back freedoms even further, and basically flush this democracy down the tubes. Sure, the top 1% will benefit greatly. The rest of us will become serfs. Under Romney there will be bread lines, and probably no bread.

No thanks. Romney is an irresponsible choice, IMO. It's too bad Huntsman didn't become the nominee. He might have been OK, though he didn't really last long enough for me to find out. Romney is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Certainly the unemployment and debt situations are not ideal, but they are much better than they were. And that doesn't even get into other stuff like the Ledbetter Act. Despite a hostile Congress things are better than four years ago. Far from great, and still many disappointments, but better.

Are things better? We've had a phenomenal number of people drop out of the labor force. Of those employed, the number of part-time employees who desire a full-time job has also increased. Our debt situation isn't just "not ideal," it's horrendous, and Obama keeps submitting ridiculous budgets. Median household income is still down. The recovery has been extraordinarily slow by historical standards. Interest rates are rock bottom so that savers get zip. We have made *zero* progress on entitlement form because Democrats absolutely refuse to cut entitlements.

Face it. Your boy's policies are once again proving that socialism doesn't work.

No thanks. Romney is an irresponsible choice, IMO.

We actually agree here. I won't be voting for him. However, compared to Obama, he sounds a *million* times better. Or less worse, depending on how you want to look at it.

When Obama was elected, I thought he would be bad, but I severely underestimated just how bad that he would be.

Can you be specific, please? By what metric? It's easy to say "pathetic" or "worst" or whatever, but how do you support that? I've supported my statements.

I never said Obama was a great president. He has made things better than they were, but he has also disappointed on several fronts. Why do you think his base is not energized this time? He has let them down. I'm not actually his base, but he let me down too.

If I have to choose between being shot in the gut, and shot in the head, I'll take my chances with the gut shot. Romney is a head shot.

If you prefer, go ahead and use the U6 statistic (that includes "drop outs"). The answer is the same. Best rate in over four years.

One would *hope* so after this much time has passed from a severe recession! It is still an incredibly stagnant "recovery," if you can even call it that. The problem is that you are assuming that any improvement whatsoever is due to his policies, when the truth is that we managed to improve in *spite* of his policies.

And he's not socialist. He does not advocate government controlling the means of production, nor do his policies. He's still letting those criminals on Wall Street run rampant.

Fine, play the semantics game. There is no denying that he is a collectivist, and collectivism doesn't work. There is a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity.

When Obama was elected, I thought he would be bad, but I severely underestimated just how bad that he would be.

Can you be specific, please? By what metric? It's easy to say "pathetic" or "worst" or whatever, but how do you support that? I've supported my statements.

There are two aspects to being a great leader:1) Great values, and2) Great leadership ability.

Hitler is an example of someone with poor values, but great leadership ability. Gandhi is an example of someone with great values and great leadership ability. Obama is someone with poor values (collectivism), and poor leadership ability.

I knew that Obama had poor values. His collectivist mentality was plain to see. He made his disdain for the Constitution clear early on. He believes in a "living Constitution," which essentially means that the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean at the current moment. Original intentions are irrelevant to him and his fellow Democrats, for whom the concept of rule of law is an antiquated notion. You can twist the original words into what ever meaning you want under their philosophy.

At the time of the last election, Obama's leadership ability was unknown. He really had no leadership experience, so it was impossible to judge. I was dubious, but willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now he has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a poor leader.

He is absolutely ridiculous. He talked about going through the budget line by line. He found a whopping $100 million of savings. He has presided over *massive* deficits, the biggest ever, for 4 years straight. The budgets he submitted for the next 10 years are ludicrous.

He clearly tried to take credit for killing Bin Laden. He clearly tried to pretend that the Benghazi attack was not terrorism.

I could go on and on, but I shouldn't have to point out the abundantly obvious.

However, I find it difficult to apply the label "collectivist" to him. Does putting forth a health care plan originally drawn up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation make him collectivist? Really? It was welfare for insurance companies more than anything else. If you can be specific here, that would help. I have seen no attempts by him to "collectivise" anything.

As for the Constitution, you can thank GWB (and John Kyl, that ass) for most of the loss of our freedoms. And for putting right-wing ideologues on the SCOTUS to allow such travesties as Citizen's United. I will grant you that Obama has continued several GWB policies (e.g. warrantless wiretapping), but he hardly originated any of them. I do still hold him responsible for not repudiating them, however.

I can't comment on the $100M thing as I am not familiar with what you are talking about. However, he inherited the first budget, and it is not reasonable to think he (or anyone) could cut the deficits significantly in a few years. All that spending was established by Bush, and the lack of revenues also. Difficult to reverse either. But he has slowed the growth in the debt. With this Congress, that alone is a miracle.

I do agree with you, however, that we need a sensible tax policy and we need to cut expenditures in several areas. I don't think any candidate will be able to do it, however. Not Romney, not Obama, not Stein and not Johnson. None of them.

He clearly tried to take credit for killing Bin Laden.

He may not have been among the SEALs, but he gave the order. If OBL had been killed in Tora Bora you can bet GWB would have taken credit too.

He clearly tried to pretend that the Benghazi attack was not terrorism.

Disagree. Withholding definitive statements until the facts are in is NOT pretending anything. In fact, it would be stupid to pretend (and he's not stupid). In something like that the facts will come out, and relatively quickly. His Rose Garden speech did not attribute the attack to anything at all. Now he says it was a planned assault that just happened to coincide with protests over something else. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill on this one.

As I said, intrade is non-partisan. They just let you bet (in essence) on the outcome.

Intrade is also not a polling organization. It does not attempt to forecast what will happen based on anything other than what people are willing to bet money on.

The markets on the presidential election are *puny* compared to the campaigns. Manipulating them would be cheap and easy for either campaign, or for either party, or for any of quite a number of officially-unaffiliated organizations.

To me, the fact that you think the result is worth citing means nothing more than that you aren't paying attention.